A Note on the Latin Dedication in the Rabbinic Bible of Venice 15

A Note on the Latin Dedication in the Rabbinic Bible of Venice 1517
by: Jordan S. Penkower
In response to the recent post at the Seforim Blog about approbations of Hebrew books, a correction is in order concerning the footnote about the intent of the remarks of Felix Pratensis in his dedication of the Venice 1517 Rabbinic Bible to the Pope. In footnote 3 of the recent post, a conjecture was offered to explain Felix Pratensis’ remarks.
In addition, Pratensis claims that this edition was unique as the prior editions “hav[e] almost as many errors as words in them” and that “no one has attempted [such an edition] before.” Ginsburg in his discussion about this edition shows, however, that in fact previous editions were (close) to error free. Ginsburg bemoans the fact that “Felix Pratensis should have been betrayed to resort to such unfair expedients.”  But, it is possible that Pratensis’ claim regarding the novelty of the work was necessary in part due approbations.  Not Rabbinic approbations but the approbation of the Venetian Senate.  This is so, as in 1517 the Senate passed a law that would abolish all printing monopolies (copyrights) and hence forth would only grant monopolies for works which “are new or which have never been printed before.”  Horatio Brown, The Venetian Printing Press (London 1891), 74. Indeed, Bomberg, the printer of this edition had appealed to the Senate for a monopoly when he began printing in 1515 and which the new law abolished. See Meir Benayahu, Copyright, Authorization & Imprimatour for Hebrew Books Printed in Venice (Israel 1971), 17 (Hebrew).  Thus, it is possible that Pratensis claim of novelty was to argue implicitly that this book qualified for a monopoly even under the new law as it was a “new” book.  
I would like to clarify a number of points about Pratensis’ remarks.
(1) Among his remarks, Pratensis makes the following statements: (a) no one before him had collated a great number of manuscripts to prepare a Bible edition; (b) the errors in the manuscripts are almost as many as their words, and only in this printed edition has the text been restored to its purity (See my PhD, p. 282 and nn. 20-21 for text and translation).
(2) Previous scholars have pointed out the problem with Pratensis’ remarks, which seem to be mere hyperbole. C.D. Ginsburg, in his Introduction (pp. 946-947), who explained Pratensis’ remarks as referring to the text, noted that he found several manuscripts similar to Pratensis’ edition, and on the other hand, never found any manuscripts whose errors were as numerous as its words. P. Kahle, in numerous places, e.g. Cairo Geniza, p.123, offered an explanation of Pratensis’ remarks: Pratensis was referring to the vocalization found in the manuscripts, specifically those manuscripts with “expanded-Tiberian vocalization”, a system that he rejected.
(3) Neither of the above explanations of Pratensis’ remarks is satisfactory. Ginsburg – he himself noted that if Pratensis refers to the text, there are several manuscripts similar to Pratensis’ printed edition. Kahle – his explanation is unsatisfactory because Pratensis said that ALL mss – and not some specific sub-type – were replete with errors. I have offered an explanation several years ago in my doctoral thesis (pp. 187-188) that avoids the shortcomings of these suggestions. In chapter four of my thesis, I presented a detailed comparison of the variants between the Venice 1517 and the 1525 Rabbinic Bibles – in Genesis, Joshua, and Proverbs – both with respect to the text, as well as to the vocalization, accentuation, and ga’ayot. In light of the results of the comparisons between the two editions, I suggested that one should explain Pratensis’ remarks as referring both to the text, as well as to the vocalization, accentuation, and ga’ayot.
(4) I have shown in my fourth chapter that with respect to the TEXT, Pratensis relied mainly on accurate Sefardi manuscripts. These manuscripts do NOT mark the “light ga’aya” consistently; do NOT use qamatz together with shewa to note the qamatz qatan (but only the sign of the qamatz alone); do NOT have a special sub-system of accentuation in Proverbs; and do NOT write “bin-Nun” with a dagesh in the first nun of the name Nun. With respect to all of these latter four phenomena – found in the Rabbinic Bible of Venice 1517 – Pratensis relied upon Ashkenazi manuscripts, which also vary widely from the accurate Sefardi manuscripts with respect to the details of plene-defective spelling (these Ashkenzai manuscripts also vary among themselves with respect to the above four phenomena). From these details it follows that according to Pratensis every manuscript that he saw, its errors were like the number of its words: Ashkenazi manuscripts with respect to the plene-defective spelling (and other topics), and the Sefardi manuscripts with respect to vocalization, accentuation, and ga’ayot.
(5) Thus we see that Pratensis indeed thought that his edition was unique and was the first accurate Bible edition. In his edition, he gathered for the first time phenomena from the above noted Sefardi and Ashkenazi manuscripts, and in his opinion his edition thereby “restored the splendor to the crown” with regard to all of its components: text, vocalization, accentuation, and ga’ayot. In reality, he created a new hybrid that never existed in the manuscripts.
Bibliography: Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, London 1897, reprint: New York 1966; Paul Kahle, The Cairo Genizah, Oxford 1959; Jordan S. Penkower, Jacob ben Hayyim and the Rise of the Biblia Rabbincia, PhD dissertation, 2 vols, Jerusalem 1982 (Heb.); idem, “Rabbinic Bible”, in: Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, vol. 2, Abington Press, Nashville Tenn 1999, pp. 361b-364a.



Some Observations Regarding Approbations for Hebrew Books

Haskamot (rabbinical approbations) to Hebrew books have an very interesting history.  There are a few different forms of haskamot, perhaps the most important form is that which granted the author and/or publisher a copyright. Typically, the haskamah would prohibit republishing the particular book for a period of ten or fifteen years, etc.  In some instances, it was not only the particular book but any book in the field. For example, the haskamah to R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller's edition of the Mishna with his commentary, Tosefot Yom Tov (Prague 1617) provides that "it is prohibited from printing any Mishnayot with any commentary for four years."[1] The history of this particular form haskamah begins with the approbation that appears on the first Rabbinic bible (Venice 1517).  As Jordan Penkower has previously provided, the approbation which appears at the end of Chronicles states that it is  forbidden [for] any one under the penalty of excommunication and also the loss of the books in the territories of the Holy Roman Church, to print or cause to be printed these books with the Targum or without the Targum and the Hebrew Commentaries of the Bible for the space of ten years from 1515.[2]This approbation is somewhat unique for Hebrew books as it was not given by a Rabbi but instead by Pope Leo X. Indeed, the version of this bible which contains this approbation was also dedicated to the Pope. Felix Pratensis, the editor and former Jew (he became a Augustin monk), explains in the dedication that the very idea of including the Targumim is favorable to the Church.  He explains that  the text we have added the ancient Hebrew and Chaldee Shcola, to wit the common Targum and that of Jerusalem.  These contain many obscure and recondite mysteries, not only useful, but necessary to the devout Christian.  We have wished with good reason to publish the whole under the sanction of your name [Leo X], for whereas on this book the foundation and the entire superstructure of Christianity rests, you are revered by us as the chief head of the Christian Church on earth and no one can deny the appropriateness of the dedication to you of our work.  Another odd approbation appears in the book printed much later in Lemberg, 1878.  This book, Peni Abraham, authored by R. Abraham Abba Seelenfreund includes approbations dated years before the book was ever published. For example, R. Meir Perles' approbation is dated 1852.  But, that approbation is not unique in the history of approbations.  In fact, the first Ashkenazik approbations, appearing in R. Shlomo Luria's Hakmat Shlomo (Krakow 1581) contains the approbation of R. Kalman of Worms dated 1542.  Instead, the odd approbation is that of R. Yitzhak Meir Alter, the Gerrer Rebbi otherwise known as the Hiddushei ha-Rim.  The reason this approbation is odd does have to do with the date.  Specifically, it is dated, Rosh Hodesh Tamuz, 1870.  The problem is that R. Alter died some four years earlier on the 23 of Adar 1866!  Now it is possible that instead of 5630 (1870) it should read 5620 (1860) and the letter Chuf was inadvertently changed to a Lamed, but in all events, it is a rather interesting slip of the pen.[3]    Now, it is not only the approbation that is of interest, in fact, R. Seelenfreund himself was somewhat of a character. According to the brief biography by R. Yekutiel Yehuda Greenwald,[4] R. Seelenfreund ended up divorcing his first wife during sheva Berakhot.  Additionally, although R. Seelenfreund was the Rabbi in Zaloshick (Poland) for a period of time, in 1875 he took a position in Kosice, Hungary for a short period of time.  While R. Seelenfreund was considered Ultra-Orthodox, as the term was used by the Hungarians, Kosice, as were many cities in Hungry was split between three Jewish factions, Reform, Ultra-Orthodox and Status Quo.  R. Seelenfreund was appointed Rabbi of the Status Quo  synagogue and thought that his relationships with Ultra-Orthodox Rabbis would allow him to remain to be viewed as such.  Indeed, on his first sefer, Pras Avot (Lemberg 1865), he obtained the approbation of R. Yosef Shaul Nathanson.  It was R. Nathanson's suggestion for the title of the book to be Pras Avot. It appears that R. Seelenfreund, however, was very wrong in his calculation regarding Kosice. He eventually left Kosice and returned to Zaloshick but not before relationships between himself and the community broke down.  He even published a small book, Kol Shover Shekarim (Kosice 1878) to defend himself.  It is unclear why much of this history of R. Seelenfreund does not appear in Cohen's biography of R. Seelenfreund from Hakmei Hungaria.[5]  It appears that Cohen was unaware that R. Seelenfreund left Kosice or that he published Kol Shover Shekarim.  

[1] For this and other similar approbations see Nahum Rakover, Copyright in Jewish Sources (Israel 1991), 150-53 (Hebrew). Both Rakover's work as well as Benayahu's, see infra n3, break new ground on the issue of approbations.  The new edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica, however, does not use any of these sources.  In fact, the new version merely reprints the earlier article on haskma which appeared in the 1971 edition and is seriously lacking.  This is but another example of how the new version has significant gaps.  See Shnayer Z. Leiman's review of the new edition here and Shlomo Zalman Havlin's additional note on the topic here. [2] The translation of this and the next quote is taken from Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (Ktav Press 1966), 935-36, 946.[3] In addition, Pratensis claims that this edition was unique as the prior editions "hav[e] almost as many errors as words in them" and that "no one has attempted [such an edition] before." Ginsburg in his discussion about this edition shows, however, that in fact previous editions were (close) to error free. Ginsburg bemoans the fact that "Felix Pratensis should have been betrayed to resort to such unfair expedients."  But, it is possible that Pratensis' claim regarding the novelty of the work was necessary in part due approbations.  Not Rabbinic approbations but the approbation of the Venetian Senate.  This is so, as in 1517 the Senate passed a law that would abolish all printing monopolies (copyrights) and hence forth would only grant monopolies for works which "are new or which have never been printed before."  Horatio Brown, The Venetian Printing Press (London 1891), 74. Indeed, Bomberg, the printer of this edition had appealed to the Senate for a monopoly when he began printing in 1515 and which the new law abolished. See Meir Benayahu, Copyright, Authorization & Imprimatour for Hebrew Books Printed in Venice (Israel 1971), 17 (Hebrew).  Thus, it is possible that Pratensis claim of novelty was to argue implicitly that this book qualified for a monopoly even under the new law as it was a "new" book.   [4] Y.Y. Greenwald, "The Descendants of the Rema and their Influence in Hungary," Sinai 28 (1951): 85-87 (Hebrew).  [5] Y.Y. Kohen, Hakmei Hungaria (Israel 1997), 342. 



Review: Macsanyuh Shel Torah

Review: Me'achsanya Shel ha-Torahby Eliezer Brodt Me'achsanya Shel ha-Torah, Rabbi Moshe Hubner, ed., New York, 2008, 297 pp.   As mentioned in the past, there is an austounding amount of seforim being published.  One genre, that is bursting at the seams, is sefarim on Chumash. There are seforim printed from famous people; some are still with us, while others have been gone for many years. These seforim focus on all kinds of topics: mussar, machashavah, pshat, kabbalah, d'rush, and halachah. In truth, it is virtually impossible to keep up with what is printed. I would, however, like to mention just one such sefer printed this year: Me'achsanya Shel ha-Torah. This sefer is composed of three generations of Torah from the Hubner family. Most notably, Rabbi Shmuel Hubner, z"l, who was a big Rav for many years; ybl"ch, his son, Rabbi Y. Hubner; and his grandson, Rabbi Moshe Hubner, a young author who is frequently featured in the Hamodia Magazine Torah section. This sefer contains many interesting pieces on Chumash, some short and many long, representing unique and interesting topics and styles in learning. Aside from the many interesting chiddushim presented, it is worthwhile to note the mention of many rare and exotic sefarim quoted as sources throughout the work. As in almost any sefer, a variety of interesting content can be found apart from the actual body of the work. I would like to mention just a few of the interesting discussions I found in this sefer.  The sefer begins with a very nice but straight to the point biography of Rabbi Shmuel Hubner, written by his son, Rabbi Y. Hubner. This biography was based on stories heard from Rabbi Shmuel Hubner throughout his lifetime (1891-1983). Rabbi S. Hubner  made his rounds in Europe, meeting many different gedolim (almost like a Forrest Gump). (One gets the impression that there are many more nice stories that should have been printed here.) Just to mention some of the facts mentioned: Rabbi S. Hubner attended the levayah of Harav Yosef Engel, zt"l, and heard the famous hesped of Harav Meir Arik, zt"l, who said on Rav Engel that he was a baki in all areas of Torah, Bavli Yerushalmi, Tosefta, etc., to which Rav Steinberg, the Brode Rav, asked him if he wasn't perhaps exaggerating a bit. Rav Arik replied that it was one hundred percent true, and there was no exaggeration involved.  Rav Hubner studied at the Berlin Seminary and heard shiurim from Harav Chaim Heller, zt"l. He was in Vienna when the Rogatchver Gaon, zt"l, passed away and he visited with him a bit before he died. He heard the Rogatchver expound on some topics in the parashah based on his well-known and unique methods of thought and assessment. Rabbi Hubner was the rebbi of the well-known scholar and writer, ybl"ch, Rabbi Tuviah Preschel.   After the war, Rabbi S. Hubner was a Rav in Brooklyn. Over the years he printed many pieces on all kinds of topics in the various Torah journals. Eventually, he collected many of them that related to practical halachah and printed them in a sefer entitled Sh"ut Nimukei Shmuel. This sefer received very warm haskamos from Harav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l, and Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l. Some of the pieces have been reprinted in Me'achsanya Shel ha-Torah, along with many new pieces found in Rabbi Hubner's many personal journals, which have never before been printed. This leads to a now-famous discussion regarding divrei Torah left behind after a person's petirah. In particular, if the mechaber did not leave instructions as to whether his writings should be printed, is his family permitted to do so? Another issue is, do these pieces carry weight in halachah, since the writer might have changed his mind before he passed away. An additional questioned is, if the mechaber specified not to print his writings, must his family adhere to his wishes? Much has been written on these topics, but Rabbi M. Hubner found information in his grandfather's notes addressing this very issue, which he included in Me'achsanya Shel HaTorah. Being that Rabbi S. Hubner's answer was very original, I am quoting it here in its entirety (intro pg. 9-10):   קראתי את תשובתו שבה כת"ה שקיל וטרי באריכות בנידון השאלה אם יש לשמוע להמחבר שציוה שלא לפרסם את כתביו הכוללים חידושים ותשובות. ואחרי שכת"ה מביא צדדי היתר וצדדי איסור הוא מגיע למסקנת שאין לשמוע לצוואת המחבר ויש להדפיס את כתביו. לע"ד נראה שיש לחקור ולמצוא טעמו ונימוקו של המחבר מפני מה הוא ציוה שלא להדפיס את כתביו ופסק הדין בשאלה זו תלוי בנימוקו של המחבר. דעתי זו מיוסדת על דברי הח"ס באו"ח סי' ר"ח שכתב וז"ל : כל המחבר ספר ומתערב במחשבתו לגדל שמו רבצה בו האלה האמורה במילי דאבות : נגיד שמא אבד שמא (פרקי אבות פ"א מי"ג) ולא תעשינה ידיו תושיה להוציא מחשבתו לפועל, כי יבוא מבקרי מומין ויחפשו וימצאו, מלבד שהוא עובר איסור דאורייתא דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לכותבן, ולא הותר אלא משום עת לעשות לה', (גיטין ס א) ואם איננו עושה לה' הרי איסורו במקומו עומד. לעומת זה מי שיודע בעצמו כי כל מגמתו לשם הית"ב, להגדיל תורה ולהדירה ורק מונע בר מפני חשש מבקרי מומין ומלעיגים ומלעיבים במלאכי ה' עבירה היא בידו, וכשם שיקבל עונש על הדרישה הנ"ל [אם אינה לשם שמים], כן ייענש זה על הפרישה, עכ"ל. בדברי החתם סופר הללו נמצאת התשובה על השאלה דמר. אם הציווי של המחבר שלא לפרסם את כתביו נבע מן החשש הראשון הנזכר בדברי הח"ס אז לדעתי מצוה לקיים דברי המת ולא להדפיסם, כי לב יודע מרת נפשו, ואין היורשים רשאים לעבור על צוואתו, כי ע"י הדפסת הספר יעשו רעה להמחבר, ואילו היה חי היה מורה בכל תוכף נגד ההדפסה, ועכשיו שאינו יכול למחות פסק הדין צריך למנוע מעשות לו עול. ואם ישאלני איך אפשר עכשיו לידע מה היה הנימוק שבגללו אסר את הפירסום ? אשיבנו שזה אפשר להכיר מתוך תשובותיו. אם דברי הח"ס מובאים בתשובותיו ובחידושיו, אז קרוב לודאי שגם תשובה זו היתה ידועה לו והיא היא שהניעה והביאה אותו לידי כך שיאסור לפרסם את כתביו. ברם אף אם דברי הח"ס אינם מובאים בתשובותיו אפשר ואפשר שתשובות הח"ס ובתוכן גם התשובה הנ"ל היו ידועות לו, שכן לא יצוייר שמחבר תשובות לא ישתמש בתשובות הח"ס. בהתחשבות עם זה לבי מהסס להתיר הפרסום. הדבר שונה אם הנימוק העיקרי לצוואתו לא היה החשש הנ"ל אלא מטעם אחר כגון מפני חשש המבקרים או מפני שהיה מיראי הוראה, אז רשאי או יותר נכון מצוה להדפיס את כתביו כמפורש בדברי הח"ס שהבאתי לעיל. והנני להביא עוד ראיות לכך : בספר חסידים סי' תתקל כתב מי שגילה לו ה' דבר ואינו כותבו הוא גוזל את הרבים כדכתב סוד ה' ליראיו ובריתו להודיעם. ובשבט סופר (פ' כב) דעתיד אדם ליתן דין וחשבון על זה שאינו כותב חידושיו. ובספר מור וקציעה סי' רכג כתב דמי שגומר ספר בכתיבה וכל שכן בהדפסה יש לו לברך ברכת שהחיינו שכן עושין שמחה לגמרה של תורה, שאין שום קנין ובניו שיש בו שמחה יותר מזה. וכן מצינו ביבמות (צו ב) שדוד המלך התפלל אגורה באהלך עולמים (תהל' סא) וכי אפשר לאדם בשני עולמים ? אלא דוד אמר לפני הקב"ה רבונו של עולםל יהי רצון שיאמרו דבר שמועה מפי בעוה"ז. וכמו שאמר רשב"י כל ת"ח שאומרים דבר שמועה מפיו בעולם הזה שפתותיו דובבות בקבר. העיקר בנידון זה, לידע מאיזה טעם המחבר ציווה שלא לפרסם את כתביו.     Another very interesting discussion found in this sefer (pp. 264-66) is a piece about the authorship of Lecha Dodi. Being that I have never seen or heard a discussion of anyone denying that Harav Shlomo Alkebetz, zt"l, authored the tefilah, I feel it is worthwhile to quote this piece in part. Rabbi S. Hubner knew an interesting person named Reb Meir Sokel, who suggested to him as follows:    רק שני החרוזים הראשונים נכתבו ע"י שלמה אלקבץ, שבהם הוא שר על קדושת שבת. אבל שאר החרוזים, שבהם שוב אין זכר לשבת, ואין להם כל קשר לחרוזים הראשונים, הם מעשה ידי מזייף והם מכוונים לאיזה "איש הנערץ והנקדש", אישיות מהוללה ומפוארה, שאליה מדבר המזייף בלשון נקבה – כלומר המזייף מטיף בהם לנצרות באורח מוסווה… מאיר סוקל מסיק שהשיר "לכה דודי" לא יוכל להיכלל בשירי ישראל, ורק מתוך אי-ידיעה ואי-הבחנה הוכנס השיר לסדר התפילה ויש להימנע, לדעתו, מלאמרו. To which Rabbi S. Hubner replied to him at length:  א- השיר "לכה דודי", כמו שהוא לפנינו נדפס בפעם הראשונה בפראג בספר "ארחות חיים" בשנת שע"ב כשלושים שנה אחר פטירת המשורר. ולא יתכן כי בזמן שבני דורו של המשורר היו עוד בחיים יהיה איש לזייף באופן גס כזה, ישאיר רק שני חרוזים מקוריים ואת החרוזים האחרים ימיר בחרוזיו "החשודים", והזיוף לא הוכר ואיש לא מחה כנגדו. ב- דבר ידוע הוא שהאר"י [האשכנזי – ר' יצחק לוריא] שהמשורר הסתופף בצלו, בחר בשירי אלקבץ מפני שנכתבו על דרך האמת. והלא בזמן שנדפס השיר שהוא לפנינו היה ר' חיים ויטאל, איש סודו ותלמידו הגדול של האר"י עוד בחיים. אם כן איך אפשר הדבר, שר' חיים ויטאל לא הדגיש בזיוף ובשינוי שאיש בליעל ביצע בשירו של אלקבץ, שהאר"י בחר בו, וציין אותו כשיר שנכתב על דרך האמת, והשינוי נתקבל ? ג- מאיר סוקל קובע שהחרוזים האחרונים של השיר לא יצאו מתחת ידו של אלקבץ, שהרי אין להם שום קשר לחרוזים הראשונים. מסקנתו של מ. ס. בנויה על הנחות בלתי נכונות. לאמיתו של דבר אין כאן סטיה מן הענין, החרוזים האחרונים מחוברים וקשורים אל הראשונים. עובדה היסטורית היא שאלקבץ, אחר בואו מאדריאנופול לצפת, הצטרף לחבורה הקדושה שהתקבצה מסביב להאר"י. בין אלה היו גיסו של אלקבץ, המקובל ר' משה קורדובירו, ר' יוסף קארו [בעל השולחן ערוך], ר' משה אלשיך, ר' אליהו די וידאש [בעל ראשית חכמה] ועוד. ערגה עזה להופעתו של הגואל היתה ממלאה את לב כל אלה וכל מאוויי נפשם היו להחיש את הגאולה. חד לכוסף הגאולה, אנו מוצאים בחרוזים האחרונים של "לכה דודי". אחרי שהמשורר שר בשני החרוזים הראשונים על קדושת השבת, הוא נותן ביטוי בחרוזים האחרונים לתקוות הגאולה, שנפשו של המשורר ערגה לה כל כך. הוא פונה אל ירושלים הנקראת "מקדש מלך" (עמוס ז יג) ומנחם אותה שגאולת ה' קרובה לבוא, אחרי שבני ישראל קבלו את השבת – וזה על יסוד מאמרו של ר' שמעון בן יוחאי "אלמלי משמרין ישראל שתי שבתות כהלכתן מיד נגאלים".  כל הנימוקים האלה שהזכרתי מספיקים כבר להפריד את השערתו של מ. ס., אבל הוספתי עוד נימוק מענין והוא : הלא הרדר, מסופרי המופת בספרות הגרמנית, תרגם את השיר "לכה דודי" לגרמנית מפני חשיבותו של השיר ולא מצא בו שום דופי. גם המשורר בחסד עליון, היינריך היינה, נזדקק לשיר זה לתרגמו ולא פסל אותו בשל חוסר אחידות. והנה מ. ס. פסל תוך גישתו השכלתנית שיר שנתקדש אצל בני ישראל במשך דורות. את כל זה כתבתי לו, אבל איני יודע אם נימוקי שיכנעו אותו או עמד על דעתו.    Another discussion of interest, in a more bibliographical sense, is a chapter (pp. 271-75) written by Rabbi Tuviah Preschel. It concerns a translation of the Talmud that Rabbi Shmuel Hubner wrote while hidden away in Belgium during World War II. What is unique about this translation is that it was done in Yiddish. By 1944 (when Belgium was liberated), Masechtos Brachos, Baba Metziah and part of Bava Kama had been completed. By 1948, a few more masechtos were completed. As late as 1965, some of these volumes were already being reprinted. Due to technical reasons, the printing of these masechtos was never completed. What is interesting is that Rabbi Hubner's translation seems to have escaped the otherwise rather excellent article of  Rabbi Adam Mintz, "The Talmud in Translation" in Printing the Talmud, an updated version of his article in Torah Umadah.

Aside from these valuable pieces, there are many more to be found in Me'achsanya Shel ha-Torah. Just to note some, there is a very interesting discussion on the halachic aspects of adopting children (pp. 213-26); why the children "steal" the Afikomon on Pesach night (pp. 140-43); what reward can/does one get for learning via listening to a taped recording (p. 173)? (This question is found in the middle of a long discussion on the meaning of "שלא ברכו בתורה תחילה"); whether Hashem's shvuah to Noach not to destroy the world was only as pertains to a flood or any other means as well (pp. 31- 34); Zimri's understanding of the avodah zarah of baal pe'or (pp. 156-59); and an incredible lengthy discussion showing the historical background and logic behind the many the takonos of Ezra Hanavi (pp. 206-13).
For information regarding the sefer, Rabbi Moshe Hubner may be contacted at hubners@gmail.com. 



Caught in the Act: An Unknown Admission of Plagiarism

While we have had the opportunity to discuss plagiarism on multiple occasions, it is rare in the Jewish world that a plagiarizer is caught and admits their mistake.  As such I wanted to discuss such an example. 

R. Yosef HaKohen Schwartz (1875-1944) was a veracious reader.  Many of his responsa are devoted to notes on newly printed seforim.  Indeed, the equally well-read bibliophile, R. Reuven Margoliyot, was in the habit of sending his new books for R. Schwartz's comment.  Needless to say, if one wished to pick a person's books to appropriate and remain undetected, it is probably not the best strategy to pick someone who reads much of what is published.  In this instance, however, that appears to be exactly what happened. 

One of R. Schwartz's books is devoted to yarhzeit customs, Moad Kol Hayi (Kisvarda, 1925).  It is a short book, which is made even shorter by the inclusion of a bunch of approbations, a eulogy, and a responsum.  While the book in and of itself is fairly unremarkable, what happened next is.  R. Tzvi Hirsch Friedling, who edited a Polish Torah Journal, Ha-Be'ar, published a work that was broader in scope than Schwartz's but also encompassed the same topic as Schwartz covered – yarhzeit customs.  Specifically, Friedling, some time after 1928 published Hayyim ha-Nitzchim a collection of sources related to funerary customs as well as yarhzeit.  Friedling had published similar likut seforim and, in part recycled some of the approbations he received on a different work, Kiyum ha-Olam, for Hayyim ha-Nitzchim, including an approbation from R. Abraham Isaac Kook. Indeed, we know that Hayyim ha-Nitzchim must have been published after 1928 as the approbations contain dates from 1928.  It is true that there is no date given on the title page, however, as should become apparent, the first edition of Friedling's book must have been published after 1928 and before 1936.

While Friedling readily admits that Hayyim ha-Nitzchim is not an original work, no where does he mention R. Schwartz or Schwartz's work on yahrzeit.  Although Schwartz is not mentioned, there is no doubt that the section of Friedling's book dealing with yarhzeit used Schwartz.  Indeed, as one would expect, Schwartz read Friedling's book and realized that Friedling had "borrowed" material from Schwartz.  In Schwartz's responsa, Va-Yitzbor Yosef, no. 50, Schwartz has a letter to R. Moshe Tzvi Landau discussing Landau's book Shulhan Melachim (Beregovo, 1931).  In his comments on Landau's book, Schwartz discusses  plagiarism in general and notes that he is a victim of plagiarism and specifically that Friedling had used his materials without attribution.  Schwartz writes: You should be aware that there are entire published books that were never written [by the alleged authors], that is, without changing anything except the title [people have plagiarized books] indeed I am not immune to this behavior as one Polish rabbi (and in the approbations he is refered to a Goan and a tzaddik! what a joke) who printed a book under the title "Hayyim ha-Nitzchim", however, it is all mine which he stole from my small, in size, but great in content book "Mo'ad Kol Hayi" which I spent many years gathering and collecting all the laws [that appear in the book], and now from the "well" [this is a play on the word be'er that subltly references Friedling's journal Ha-Be'er] the deer [a play on Friedling's name Tzvi] has drunk without my knowledge, and in doing so has destroyed a world, he [Friedling] failed to give me proper recognition, how terrible it is for a generation to have this happen in their time. יען כי גם ספרים שלמים קובעים בדפוס אשר לא דרו ולא ילדו, ובלי שינוי מעשה  אך בשינוי שם לבד, כאשר עשה אתי עמי רב א' מפולין (ומתארין אותו עוד בההסכמות לגאון וצדיק! אשר הוא לשחוק) כי הדפיס ס' בשם "חיים הנצחיים", וכלו שלי הוא גנוב אתו מספרי קטן הכמות ורב האיכות "מועד כל חי" אשר יגעתי בו הרבה שנים ללקט ולקבץ כל הדינים בזה, ועתה מבא"ר ההוא משקה הצבי שבור העדרים בבלי דעת, ומחריב העולם, ואת מקומי לא הערה, ואוי לדור שכך עלתה בימיו.
 

It seems that Friedling found out that R. Schwartz caught Friedling with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar and actually attempted to make amends.  In particular, I am aware of one copy of one edition of what one assumes is a reprint of Hayyim ha-Nitzchim that is at the Widener Memorial Library at Harvard University. In that copy, before the section discussing yahrzeit customs the following admission appears:To Admit and Reveal!Because most of the statements that appear in this work were gathered and collected from the work Mo'ad Kol Hayi which was written and published by the esteemed, erudite, and well-known Rabbi Yosef ha-Kohen Schwartz who lives in Grosswarden (and is the author of Tzafnat Panaech, Shu"t Genzei Yosef, and Hadrat Kodesh and previously edited the journal Va-Yelaket Yosef for twenty years).  And because of circumstances [beyond my control??] I forgot to mention this in the introduction of this work as I should have done, and when I publish this work a second time I will/have do so.  The Author  Now, although we don't know the exact date this edition with the admission was published, we do know that it, at the very least, must have been published after 1931 and probably after 1936.  This is so, as Friedling mentions three of Schwartz's other works, the last one, Hadrat Kodesh, was published in 1931 so this admission which makes mention of Hadrat Kodesh was written after that. It is also likely that this admission was published after the appearance of R. Schwartz's Va-Yitzbor Yosef where Friedling is exposed.  Va-Yitzbor Yosef was published in 1936 and therefore it is possible that this version of Hayyim ha-Nitzchim was published some time after that.  But, as with all the editions of Hayyim ha-Nitzchim we don't know for certain exactly when they were published. 

Be that as it may, we do have an example of a full admission of plagiarism, whether intentional or inadvertent based on this little know edition of Hayyim ha-Nitzchim.  In fact, as I mentioned I know of only one copy of this version of Hayyim ha-Nitzchim housed at the Widener Memorial Library at Harvard University and have never seen it in any other copies of the book. 

For more on Schwartz's biography, see Naftali ben-Menachem's article on Schwartz in Mi-Safrut Yisrael be-Ungariah pp. 330-70; Y. Y. Cohen, Hakmei Translivania, 237-40.  Both Friedling and Schwartz shared a few common facts.  They both edited journals and it appears that both were killed in the Holocaust.

Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Yair Rosenberg for sending me a scan of the above page, and for Mr. Menachem Butler for his help as well.   



Tevie Kagan: The Enigmatic R. David Lida Part II

The Enigmatic R. David Lida Part II
by Tevie Kagan
R. David of Lida and Sabbateanism
The case for Sabbatean leanings in R. David ben Aryeh Leib of Lida’s works are somewhat cloudy. The first clear accusation in this regard is from R. Yaakov Emden in his Toras Hakanaos. [1]Specifically, R. Emden, dealt with the conclusion of one of Lida’s poem’s entitled Shir Hillulim, which was printed with his Migdol David. Shir Hillulim was written in honor of a torah dedication in Amsterdam in 1680. It was comprised of verses to be recited by the congregation and cantor. The letters at the end that are enlarged spell out “Tishbi,” and says “Tishbi, he will redeem us.” In traditional Jewish literature, Tishbi (Elijah) is referenced as a forerunner for the messiah. Emden saw this as an allusion to Shabbetai Zevi, as the letters in “Tishbi” form “Shabbetai” when transposed. Emden continues and notes that the letters between the last lines (spelling out “David”) demonstrate that Lida was attempting to equate David with Tishbi, and, consequently, with Shabbetai Zevi.
There are those who argue with Emden’s assertion that Shir Hillulim displays Sabbatean tendencies. Specifically, they note that David de Castro Tartas, who routinely printed prayer books and other works of sabbatean nature, [2]printed Shir Hillulim. Eisner, for example, postulates that Tartas added the problematic lines and that Lida knew nothing about it. [3] However, as Heller [4]points out, it would seem unlikely that a printer would modify such a small work, and that of the chief rabbi, meant for immediate distribution. Even more so, if this were the case, why would Lida use the same printer again, as he did with for his Shomer Shabbos in 1687?
Indeed, it is especially difficult to determine whether a work is Sabbatean in nature.  Within Sabbatean writings there are certain recurring themes. There is often a thematic fixation on the Messiah. The writings often focus on King David, and explain how he did not sin with Bat-Sheba (Samuel II, Chapter 11). They also frequently discuss the concept of “mitzvah ha-ba’ah be-averah,” the notion of reinterpreting biblical figures actions as foreshadowing Shabbetai Zevi’s acts (particularly Esther or King David), and the rabbinic dictum that “greater a sin done for heavens sake than a commandment done other than for the sake of heaven.” Writing about any one of these topics alone does not deem one to be a Sabbatean. However, a recurring reference to these beliefs within ones writings, combined with a less then stellar character, may deem one suspect.  Coupled with actual accusations from one of the foremost experts on Sabbateanism (R. Yaakov Emden), one must be wary and investigate further.
Aside from the obvious reasons for not overtly stating the sabbatean nature of a work, inherent in Sabbateanism is the notion of a “dual nature.”  Scholem describes this dualism as having one side bordering on nihilism and another that is outwardly religious. Elsewhere, [5] Scholem states that “[a] double-faced nature came to be seen as a characteristic trait . . . [to] live in a high tension between outward orthodoxy and inward antinomianism.” This corresponds with the paradox that the followers of Shabbetai Zevi were left with after he apostatized in 1666. This also follows Sabbatean teachings that corrupted the Lurianic doctrine of tikun, using sin as the preferred medium for rectification, as opposed to mitzvoth. Shabbetai Zevi sought to abolish many commandments, stating that since it was the messianic age they no longer were applicable. He instead preached a doctrine of “mitzvah ha-ba’ah be-averah,” asserting that the path to a mitzvah is through a sin.[6] This is one of the many ways that Shabbetai Zevi’s followers attempted to rationalize his apostasy.  They argued that he was merely gathering “sparks” from within the broken shards that reside in the Islamic faith. Shabbetai Zevi advocated certain sins outright, such as eating chelev, the forbidden fat of an animal, and abolishing the fast of the 9th of Av (Tisha B’Av”). Thus, it is unsurprising that it is difficult to uncover what truly is a Sabbatean work and what is not.
Migdol David was Lida’s first major work that was disseminated widely. It was written on the book of Ruth and seeks to explain the Davidic lineage. Migdol David does have messianic tones; yet, if the author was truly a Sabbatean, one would expect to find it overflowing with Sabbatean references. Oddly enough, though, through most of the work there are few Sabbatean references.  The ending lines are what lead to its Sabbatean suspicion, as they include the words “שבתי בבית ה'” This verse is in of itself not problematic, but the choice of  “שבתי” would fit with a common trait of Sabbatean writing to identify ones work to those who knew of certain code words. This was a fairly common tactic as can be adduced from Emden’s list in Toras Hakanaos, where many books were banned for similar reasons. [7]
Within Lida’s Sod Hashem, a manual of the rules of milah (circumcision)  with a running commentary called Sharbit Hazahav, there are a couple of problematic themes. While describing the kabalistic reasons behind mila, Lida explains that the foreskin is as an offering to Samael and, because of the phrase “nachash efer lachmo,” the foreskin is placed in dirt. Sabbatean Kabbalah often equates the nachash (snake) with the messiah, as both have the same numerical value. This does not mean that every reference to the nachash is suspect; in this case, though, clearly equating it with Samael and the offering is odd. Slightly more problematic is the quote [8]from R. Yehoshua Heshel from Vilna that discusses the verse: “Abraham was ninety-nine years old and the Lord appeared to him” (Gen. 17:1). He proceeds to give an interpretation explaining its significance within the sefiros of the numbers involved. Now, one would assume this to be the same R. Heshel under which Lida studied. However, it is R. Heshel Zoref[9] (c.1663-1700), the noted Sabbatean Kabbalist, and supposed prophet of the Sabbatean movement in Poland, to whom Lida is referring. Zoref wrote the Sefer Ha-Zoref where, among other things, he proclaimed himself Messiah b. Joseph and Shabbetai Zevi as Messiah b. David. Lida’s quoting of Zoref is not a damning piece of evidence on its own, as it is one isolated quote, and as Naor points out,[10] classic works such as Kav Hayashar contain quotes from Zoref as well.  Still, this does not help Lida,s case.
Quite possibly the most egregious piece of suspect Sabbateanism that Lida published is the homily at the beginning of his Be’er Esek. [11]After discussing the Medrash that the Yalkut Shimoni brings in Samuel (151) that David climbed the olive crop and cried, Lida goes into detail about why David would cry and why these do not suffice as reasons. Lida brings quotes from the Zohar and Peliah that say that David did not sin with Bat-Sheba, but that rather she was prepared for him from the six days of creation and that, indeed, it was a good thing that he had relations with her. David saw himself as Adam, Bat-Sheba as Eve, and Uriah the Hittite as the nachash. By having relations with Bat-Sheba, David rectified the sin of Adam and the act of the Snake having relations with Eve, ultimately bringing death to this world. Next Lida equates David, Adam and Messiah, explaining how David did not sin, but in fact effected a great tikun (rectification). Lida continues in this vein for at least another page and a half, equating his own travails with David being maligned for taking Bat-Sheba and running from Absalom.[12] This work is ostensibly setting out to clear his name of all Sabbatean charges, yet within the work Sabbatean charges are never mentioned, and the work opens with the epitome of a Sabbatean sermon!
Lest one think this is an isolated instance, one has but to look at much of Lida’s Ir David to see this is more the norm than the exception. Ir David was Lida’s magnum opus. He was only able to bring the first third to print, as he states in the introduction. Lida’s son Pesachya ended up printing the entire work in Amsterdam in 1719, through the press run by Solomon Proops.[13] In the introduction Lida discusses the rabbinic claim that when the messiah comes all holidays will be nullified except for Purim. This saying had become a popular adage among the Sabbateans, since Shabbatai Zevi had abolished all holidays (including the 9th of Av), as he believed he was the Messiah. Lida proceeds to expound on a passage (#143) in the Megaleh Amukos (by R. Nathan Nata Shapiro) that the Merkavah Chariot is alluded to in the letters שב”ת implying, therefore, that the redemption is connected to the Jews keeping shabbos. Lida proceeds to equate this using the gematria  שין, בית, תיו and אליהו משיח בן דוד   which equal 496. The equation of these two sets of words is suspect, since a popular “pastime” of Sabbateans was to show that Shabbetai Zevi’s name was numerically similar to the numerical value of the word “messiah.” If we suppose that Lida had a Sabbatean mindset, than one more passage in the introduction is suspect as well. Lida bring uses a statement from R. Isaac Luria, the Ari, that states that all souls stem from the same 248 souls, which are mired in impurities and kelipot, except those of certain individuals, one of them being the messiah. Scholem, in his article on Shabetai Zevi in the Encyclopaedia Judaica, explains how Sabbateans viewed the messiah’s soul within their own kabalistic view:[14]
“He is essentially different from all those souls which play their part in the process of tikkun. In fact, he was never under the authority of the Torah, which is the mystical instrument used by the power of the thoughtful light and the souls connected with it. He represents something utterly new, an authority which is not subject to the laws binding in the state of cosmic and historic exile. He cannot be measured by common concepts of good and evil and must act according to his own law, which may become the utopian law of a world redeemed. Both his history and his special task explain his behavior after he had freed himself from the prison of the kelippah.”
This can be used as a rationale for Shabbetai Zevi’s apostasy, for if his soul was not from among the “regular souls,” it could not be influenced by the impurities inherent in regular souls. Accordingly, he had the ability to save those who needed to be saved. Lida ends with one of his favorite verses, “ושבתי בבית ה'” with, once again, his “favorite letters” standing out. As mentioned previously, all of this is innocuous on its own, but taken within the larger picture, gives one pause.
Within Ir David there are certain recurring pieces. As in his Be’er Esek, the concept that King David didn’t sin with Bat-Sheba is an important and recurrent trope. In part 42,[15] for example, Lida argues that the reason David was perceived to have sinned was to inspire the concept of repentance in individuals. Similarly, the Israelites were perceived to have sinned by the golden calf to inspire repentance among larger groups. In part 54, Lida explains that David came to replace Adam and rectify the snake’s relations with Eve. This discussion continues in part 55 where Lida discusses two interpretations of what happened with the snake and Eve, and how this affects, depending on the interpretation, our interpretation of whether or not David sinned. Lida continues with this theme in part 58, which also combines one of Lida’s favorite aspects of David’s life, that of David being persecuted by Absalom (perhaps a reference to Shabetai Zevi or Sabbateans being persecuted). In part 64 we are reminded that King David knew he was not sinning and that, on the contrary, he was eventually rewarded with a spot in the merkavah with the forefathers. Part 86 continues this theme by asserting that David, Moses, and the Israelites all did not sin because their motivations were right; through this, Lida sets forth the concept of “better a sin done for the sake of heaven than a mitzvah done with the wrong intention.” Finally, part 88 references the Talmud in Shabbos 56 that asserts that anyone who says David sinned is wrong, as well as referencing a passage in the Assarah Maamaros that discusses why David’s name is not invoked in prayer.
 If one views Lida as a Sabbatean, then David is not the one speaking, but rather the Messiah, Shabbetai Zevi.[16] This further complicates much of Lida’s sermons, since this implies that he is no longer merely using Psalms as a springboard for simple rabbinic-homiletic discourse; on the contrary, this gives everything he states a double meaning.
It cannot be disputed that Lida was a great scholar and a prolific author. Whether he plagiarized works or held Sabbatean beliefs remains up for discussion. However, much of his writing lends proof to the fact that he did. Why his works are still in print today, as opposed to the works of other possible Sabbateans, has more to do with the luck that Lida had of being reprinted early on by the Hasidic Rabbi Tzvi Hirsh of Liska (1808-1874) (and why a Hasidic rabbi chose to latch on to such a controversial figure may have to do with the similar ideological mindset of early Hasidism and Sabbateanism).[17]
*The author would like to thank the editors of the seforim blog who make this great forum available. I would like to thank Professor S.Z Leiman for helping me with the idea for this post and guidance throughout, and Efraim Keller at the Habad Library who helped with attaining Eisner’s Toldos of Lida. and Achron Achron Chaviv Eli Meir Cohen who has been a tremendous asset with his wealth of knowledge of everything seforim related especially getting out of print items.
[1] Emden, Toras Hakanaos (Amsterdam, 1752), 71b
[2] See Rosenthaliana Studia– http://cf.uba.uva.nl/nl/publicaties/treasures/text/t18.html
[3] Eisner, Toldot ha-Goan Rabbi Dovid Lida, pg.12
[4] pg.123
[5] ‘Shabbetai Zevi,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, pg.1251
[6] See Scholem, Mitzvah Habah Beaverah: Mechkarim Umekoros Letoldos Hashabsaut Ugilgoeha (Jerusalem, 1982)
[7] For an examination/explanation of Emden’s list, see S.Z. Leiman, Sefer Hazikaron R. Moshe Lipshitz (New York, 1996)
[8] David Lida, Sod Hashem (Kiryath Joel, 2002), pg. 25
[9] Strashun, Mivhar Kesavim (Jerusalem, 1995), pg.128, n 2
[10] Betzalel Naor, Post-Sabbatian Sabbatianism (Spring Valley, 1999), pg.43
[11] Aaron Freimann, Sefer Hayovel for Nahum Sokolow (Warsaw, 1904), pg. 464
[12] While this is most probably just a standard writer’s convention, it lends credence to Emden’s contention that Lida may have had some messianic aspirations. See Emden’s Toras Hakanaos, discussing Shir Hillulim.
[13] For more about Solomon Proops, see Richard D. Abraham, “Selomoh Proops, Corrector or Copyist?” Hispanic Review, Vol. 43, No. 3. (Summer, 1975), pp. 317-320; Quaerendo, Volume 37:2 (April, 2007), pg. 96-110; Marvin J Heller, Printing the Talmud: A History of the Individual Treatises Printed from 1700
[14] pg. 1242
[15] All numbers refer to the paragraphs assigned in Amsterdam edition.
[16] See Naor, Post-Sabbatian Sabbatianism, pg. 168, n 16
[17] See Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York, 1967), “Ninth Lecture- Hasidim: The Latest Phase”

 



Jordan S. Penkower: A Note Regarding R. Menahem de Lonzano

A Note Regarding R. Menahem de Lonzano
by Jordan S. PenkowerI would like to call attention to the following points in reference to R. Menahem de Lonzano, as mentioned in Koreh HaDorot by R. David Conforte. (1) In his recent post on TSB, Eliezer Brodt, in his review of the new edition of Conforte's Koreh HaDorot (2008), made the following statement (in the second paragraph): R. Conforte was born in Salonika around 1617 and died sometime after 1678. Throughout his life he traveled to many places (including Eretz Yisroel), and in KH he describes his meetings with many great personalities, including R. Menachem Lonzano, author of Sheti Yadot,… This seems to be a "slip of the pen", for it assumes an impossibilty. Conforte was born in 1617 (or 1618) in Salonika, and Lonzano died before 1624 (apparently in Eretz Israel; he was buried there at the foot of the Mount of Olives). Thus, Conforte was still a young lad in Salonika when Lonzano died elsewhere (apparently in Eretz Israel). In short, these two scholars never met, and Conforte certainly does not mention any such meeting between them. In an interesting turn of events, these two scholars were, nevertheless, connected; for Conforte married Lonzano's granddaughter, the daughter of Lonzano's son, Adonikam. Conforte mentions his father-in-law (and the fact that he died young) in Koreh HaDorot, at the end of his entry on R. Menahem de Lonzano. (2) In his introduction to the new edition of Koreh HaDorot, p. 32, R. Bezalel Deblitzki lists as one of the manuscripts used by Conforte:      שבלי הלקט בכתיבת יד מהר"ם די לונזאנו    When one goes to verify this assumption, one finds, on p. 76 of the new edition, the following quote:   ומצאתי כתוב בתחלת ספר אחד מס' שבלי הלקט מכתיבת יד ה"ר מנחם די לונזאנו ז"ל וז"ל = וזה לשונו At first glance, one could possibly understand this statement as R. Deblitzki did, i.e. that Lonzano copied the whole manuscript of Shibbolei HaLeket. Nevertheless, a closer look yields the following interpretation: Conforte is describing a manuscript (written by an anonymous scribe) which was in the posession of Lonzano. At the beginning of this manuscript Lonzano added a gloss (quoted here at length by Conforte) about the author of the work and his teachers. Lonzano also mentions in the gloss that Zedekiah HaRofeh (author of Shibbolei HaLeket) wrote another work (=volume two; in manuscript) and that he (Lonzano) owns a copy. Lonzano further makes an observation at the end of his gloss concerning the state of the work – that people later changed the order of the work, just as they did with Sefer Yerei'im. In short, the phraseומצאתי כתוב.. מכתיבת יד ה"ר מנחם די לונזאנו ז"לrefers only to the gloss of Lonzano – which was subsequently quoted at length by Conforte. The inserted phrase: בתחלת ספר אחד מס' שבילי הלקט  simply informed the reader what were the contents of the manuscript (Shibbolei HaLeket, volume 1), and where the gloss was inserted (at the beginning of the manuscript). I later discovered that already HID"A (R. Hayyim David Azoulai) correctly interpreted this passage in Conforte's Koreh HaDorot, and understood that Lonzano possessed a manuscript copy of Shibbolei HaLeket. See Azoulai's remarks in Sheim HaGedolim, s.v. רבינו צדקיה ב"ר אברהם הרופא וב' ספרים אלו (=שבלי הלקט, על שני חלקיו) היו ביד מהר"ם די לונזאנו כמו שהביא דבריו בס' קורא הדורות דף כ"א ע"א ע"ש It should be noted that this phenomenon, of Lonzano adding glosses in books (manuscripts and printed) that he owned, can be documented in many other cases as well.